ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

NOTICE OF LIMITED SCOPE PUBLIC HEARING

TIME AND PLACE: Thursday, March 23, 2017, @ 6:30 p.m.

Jerrily R. Kress Memorial Hearing Room
441 4th Street, N.W., Suite 220-South
Washington, D.C. 20001

FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE ISSUES REMANDED BY

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS TO THE ZONING
COMMISSION PERTAINING TO THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:

CASE NO. 13-14 (Vision McMillan Partners LLC and the District of Columbia First-
Stage and Consolidated PUDs and Related Map Amendment @ 2501 First Street, N.W.
(Square 3128, Lot 800))

THIS CASE IS OF INTEREST TO ANCs 5E, 5A, and 1B

Through Zoning Commission Order No. 13-14, as corrected (the Order), the Zoning
Commission for the District of Columbia (the Commission) approved an application for a
planned unit development (PUD) pertaining to the McMillan Reservoir Slow Sand Filtration
Site, located at 2501 First Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. (Square 3128, Lot 800) in
Washington, D.C. (the Property). The application was submitted by Vision McMillan
Partners, LLC, on behalf of the District of Columbia through the Deputy Mayor for Planning and
Economic Development, the owner of the Property (collectively, the Applicant). The Order
approved a first-stage and consolidated PUD and related map amendment to rezone the Property
from unzoned to the CR and C-3-C zone districts. The parties in the case were the Applicant,
ANC 5E, the ANC in which the PUD site is located, and Friends of McMillan Park ("FOMP").

FOMP petitioned the District of Columba Court of Appeals to review the Order. A division of
that court decided to vacate the Commission's order and remand for further proceedings.
Friends of McMillan Park v. D.C. Zoning Comm'n, 149 A.3d 1027, 1035 (D.C. 2016) (the
Opinion).

At its public meeting held January 30, 2017, the Commission voted to hold a limited scope
public hearing on the issues remanded. The parties in the original case remain as parties in this
remand and may present testimony and legal argument limited to the following issues, which are
stated below using the same subject headings as used in the Opinion. The Applicant has the
burden of proof as to all the issues.
A. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan

Subsection 2403.4 of the Zoning Regulations of 1958 (Title 11 DCMR)1 requires the
Commission to find that the proposed PUD is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
with other adopted public policies and active programs related to the subject site.

The Comprehensive Plans Future Land Use Map designates future uses at the McMillan site as
moderate density commercial, medium density residential, and parks, recreation, and open
space. The Commission agreed to permit to high-density development on the northern portion
of the site concluding that, when the entire site is taken into account, the PUD's overall density is
consistent with that permitted in moderate-density commercial zones. The Court agreed with that
interpretation. However, the MidCity Area Element provides that development on the
McMillan site should consist of moderate- to medium-density housing, retail, and other
compatible uses. (10A DCMR 2016.9 (2016).) In response, the Commission found that
permitting the high-density development was a critical and essential part of fulfilling the parks,
recreation, and open space designation of the Future Land Use Map, while at the same time
achieving other elements of the Comprehensive Plan and the city's strategic economic plan.
The Court concluded that further explanation was needed.

Issue No. 1

A. Could the other policies cited in the Order be advanced even if development on
the site were limited to medium- and moderate-density use?

B. If not, which of the competing policies should be given greater weight and why?

The Court also found that Commission failed to adequately address a number of provisions in the
Comprehensive Plan that FOMP claimed weighed against approval of the PUD, including
provisions discouraging the placement of large buildings near low-density residential
neighborhoods (10-A DCMR 305.11, 309.10, 309.15 (2016)), and a provision encouraging
geographic dispersion of health-care facilities (10-A DCMR 1105.1 (2016)).

Issue No. 2.

Do these or other Comprehensive Plan policies cited by FOMP in the record of this case
weigh against approval of the PUD?

B. Other Objections to the Commission's Order

After determining to vacate the Order based upon its Comprehensive Plan discussion, the Court
briefly addressed several additional issues that could affect proceedings on remand. (149 A.3d
at 1035.) Those additional issues are as follows:

1
Because this application was originally setdown for hearing prior to the repeal of the 1958 Zoning Regulations, it
will be decided under the PUD standards existing prior to the September 6, 2016 repeal, but heard in accordance
with the contested case provisions of Title 11-Z, Chapter 4 of the 2016 Zoning Regulations.

Z.C. NOTICE OF LIMITED SCOPE PUBLIC HEARING

Z.C. CASE NO. 13-14
PAGE 2
1. Preservation of Open Space

Policy MC-2.6. of the Mid City Element provides in part:

Require that reuse plans for the McMillan Reservoir Sand Filtration site dedicate
a substantial contiguous portion of the site for recreation and open space

The Court expressed its doubt that this policy was mandatory and therefore concluded that the
Commission might be able to permissibly conclude that the need to preserve open space
justified the inclusion of some high-density development on the site. (149 A.3d at 1036.)

Issue No. 3

Is the high-density development proposed for the site the only feasible way to retain a
substantial part of the property as open space and make the site usable for recreational
purposes?

2. Adverse Impacts

The 1958 PUD Regulations provide:

2403.3 The impact of the project on the surrounding area and the operation of
city services and facilities shall not be found to be unacceptable, but
shall instead be found to be either favorable, capable of being
mitigated, or acceptable given the quality of public benefits in the
project.

2403.8 In deciding a PUD application, the Commission shall judge, balance,

and reconcile the relative value of the project amenities and public
benefits offered, the degree of development incentives requested, and
any potential adverse effects according to the specific circumstances of
the case.

The Court concluded that the Commission failed to adequately address a variety of asserted
adverse impacts of the PUD, including environmental problems, destabilization of land values
and displacement of neighboring residents, and increased demand for essential public services.
(149 A.3d at 1036.)

Issue No. 4

A. Will the PUD result in environmental problems, destabilization of land values, or

displacement of neighboring residents or have the potential to cause any other
adverse impacts identified by the FOMP in the record of this case.?

Z.C. NOTICE OF LIMITED SCOPE PUBLIC HEARING

Z.C. CASE NO. 13-14
PAGE 3
 B. If so, how should the Commission judge, balance, and reconcile the relative value
of the project amenities and public benefits offered, the degree of development
incentives requested, and these potential adverse effects.

Issue No. 5

A. Will the PUD have a favorable impact on the operation of city services and
facilities?

B. If not, is the impact capable of being mitigated, or acceptable given the quality of
public benefits in the project?

As to the issue of city services, the Commission notes the discussion in the Opinion concerning
the failure of certain District agencies to respond to referrals made by the Office of Planning. At
the time it voted to hold this hearing, the Commission requested that the Office of Planning again
refer the application to the non-responding agencies. If less than all of the agencies fail to
respond, the Commission will hear from the parties as to the significance, if any, of such non-
response on the Commissions disposition of this issue.

If any party believes that the issues stated above do not accurately or fully reflect the issues
remanded, that party must, no later than 3:00 p.m. on March 13, 2016, file with the Office of
Zoning, and serve upon the other parties, a written statement identifying the asserted
deficienc(ies) and offering revised language for the existing or any proposed additional issue
identified. If no such submission is timely made by a party, that party is deemed to have agreed
that the scope of this hearing fully encompasses the issues on remand.

In addition, any party by that same date and time may file a written statement responding to the
remand issues stated above. No response to another partys filing will be accepted.

Other than these two submissions, and the Office of Planning and other agency reports discussed
above, no submissions may be entered into the record by any party or person. During the
hearing, the Commission will accept written statements offered by witnesses and exhibits offered
by the parties.

The record in this remand proceeding includes the entire record of Zoning Commission Case No.
13-14. The Parties and public witnesses are to avoid repetitious testimony.

This public hearing will be conducted in accordance with the contested case provisions of the
Zoning Regulations, 11 DCMR Subtitle Z, Chapter 4.

How to participate as a witness.

Interested persons or representatives of organizations may be heard at the public hearing. The
Commission also requests that all witnesses prepare their testimony in writing, submit the written
testimony prior to giving statements, and limit oral presentations to summaries of the most
important points. Prior to speaking, each witness is requested to identify, by number, the remand

Z.C. NOTICE OF LIMITED SCOPE PUBLIC HEARING

Z.C. CASE NO. 13-14
PAGE 4
issue or issues being addressed, which should also be indicated on any written testimony. The
applicable time limits for oral testimony are described below.

Time limits.

For each segment of the hearing conducted on the dates listed above, the following maximum
time limits for oral testimony shall be adhered to and no time may be ceded:

1. Applicant 60 minutes.
2. FOMP 60 minutes
3. Organizations 5 minutes each
4. Individuals 3 minutes each

Pursuant to Subtitle Z 408.4, the Commission may increase or decrease the time allowed
above, in which case, the presiding officer shall ensure reasonable balance in the allocation of
time between proponents and opponents.

ANTHONY J. HOOD, ROBERT E. MILLER, PETER A. SHAPIRO, PETER G. MAY,

AND MICHAEL G. TURNBULL -------- ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, BY SARA A. BARDIN, DIRECTOR, AND BY SHARON S. SCHELLIN,
SECRETARY TO THE ZONING COMMISSION.

Do you need assistance to participate? If you need special accommodations or need language assistance services (translation
or interpretation), please contact Zee Hill at (202) 727-0312 or Zelalem.Hill@dc.gov five days in advance of the meeting. These
services will be provided free of charge.

Necesita ayuda para participar? Si tiene necesidades especiales o si necesita servicios de ayuda en su idioma (de traduccin o
interpretacin), por favor comunquese con Zee Hill llamando al (202) 727-0312 o escribiendo a Zelalem.Hill@dc.gov cinco das
antes de la sesin. Estos servicios sern proporcionados sin costo alguno.

Avez-vous besoin dassistance pour pouvoir participer? Si vous avez besoin damnagements spciaux ou dune aide
linguistique (traduction ou interprtation), veuillez contacter Zee Hill au (202) 727-0312 ou Zelalem.Hill@dc.gov cinq jours
avant la runion. Ces services vous seront fournis gratuitement.

? , ( ) , 5
Zee Hill (202) 727-0312 Zelalem.Hill@dc.gov .
.

Zee
Hill (202) 727-0312 Zelalem.Hill@dc.gov

Qu v c cn tr gip g tham gia khng? Nu qu v cn thu xp c bit hoc tr gip v ngn ng (bin dch hoc thng
dch) xin vui lng lin h vi Zee Hill ti (202) 727-0312 hoc Zelalem.Hill@dc.gov trc nm ngy. Cc dch v ny hon
ton min ph.

? ( )
(202) 727-0312 Zelalem.Hill@dc.gov

Z.C. NOTICE OF LIMITED SCOPE PUBLIC HEARING

Z.C. CASE NO. 13-14
PAGE 5